Civil Case (Nazareth) 42488-07-20 Y.A. Alon Construction Ltd. v. Milad Rahal

Judgment

We are dealing with three consolidated claims: a banknote lawsuit filed by Y.A.  Alon Construction Ltd.  (hereinafter: "Y.A.  Alon" or "the Chief Contractor" vs.  R.M.Z.  Renovation and Finishing Company Ltd.  (hereinafter: "R.M.VII." or "the subcontractor" (and Mr. Milad Rahal; A financial claim filed by R.M.Z.  against Y.A.  Alon; and a counterclaim filed by Y.A.  Alon v.  R.M.Z.  All of the claims deal with a breach of an agreement for the execution of finishing works in the View Towers project in Tirat HaCarmel, known as Block 12724, Plot 27, Lot 61 (hereinafter: the "Agreement").

Background

1. A. Alon and R.M.Z., two contracting companies, are engaged in contracting work and construction and renovation work of various kinds.
2. In October 2019, an agreement was signed for the execution of finishing works between Y.A. Alon, the main contractor, and R.M.Z., the subcontractor, in a project built by Y.A.
3. In accordance with the agreement, R.M.Z. was required to complete the work within five months, and in return for the performance of all its obligations as stated in the agreement, Y.A.  would pay it.  Alon sum of ILS 1, 600, 000 plus VAT, as a price agreed upon by Fausli.
4. On February 25, 2020, R.M.Z. notified L.A.  Alon on the termination of work on the site, following allegations of a breach of the agreement, mainly due to non-payment of sums as required by the agreement.
5. Until that date, Y.A. had paid.  Alon to R.M.Z.  A sum of ILS 1, 050, 000 at the expense of the agreed consideration.
6. Beginning of the proceedings with the application filed by Y.A. Alon v.  M.Z., for executing a deed in the amount of ILS 80, 000 at the Execution Office, for which an objection was filed by R.M.Z.  The case was transferred to the Magistrate's Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth (Objection to the Execution of Deed 42488-07-20), in the framework of which, and with the consent of the parties in the hearing on January 18, 2021, permission was granted to defend (hereinafter: the "Claim of theYatrit").
7. At the same time, R.M.Z. filed against Y.A.  Alon filed a monetary claim on contractual grounds, for payment of the sum of ILS 475, 000 plus VAT (Civil Case 13230-12-20( [Nevo] for a balance of debt and funds due to R.M.Z., according to her, due to a breach of the agreement and obligations between the parties (hereinafter: "M.Z.  Claim.").
8. She was followed by Y.A. Alon filed a financial counterclaim, on contractual grounds, for the payment of the sum of ILS 1, 200, 000 in respect of the balance of funds due to Y.A.  Alon, according to her, due to the breach of her obligations under the agreement and damages caused to her in connection therewith (hereinafter: "A.  Claim.  Alon").
9. On January 25, 2021, a decision was issued according to which the hearing in the two cases was consolidated.

The Promissory Note Claim

10. As mentioned, Y.A. Alon filed a request for the execution of a deed in the amount of ILS 80, 000 against R.M.Z. and Milad Rahal, who signed the check as a personal guarantor.
11. This is a security check at the rate of 5% of the consideration agreed upon in the agreement, which R.M.Z. gave to L.A. Alon as security for the fulfillment of all its obligations under the agreement.
12. M.Z. objected to the request and claimed that it was a security check only, in order to ensure the fulfillment of R.M.Z. obligations to Y.A.  Alon, in accordance with the agreement.  Since it had fulfilled all its obligations under the agreement, there was no room for submitting the check for payment.  On the contrary, the person who violated the agreement and remained in debt to it is Y.A.  Alon.

R.M.Z.  Claim

13. According to R.M.Z. version of her claim, the agreement was actually signed on October 25, 2019, even though the date stated in the agreement is October 10, 2019. In accordance with the agreement, it was agreed that the consideration in the amount of ILS 1, 600, 000 plus VAT would be paid according to the progress of the works, and after the approval of each stage by a supervisor in the field on behalf of Y.A.  Alon, and according to a percentage table as detailed in Appendix C to the agreement, which was not provided to R.M.Z.
14. M.Z. claimed that during the engagement Y.A. Alon paid the bills approved by the responsible supervisor on behalf of Y.A.  Alon in the field, Mr. Yossi Nahmias (hereinafter: "Nahmias"), partially, but every month delayed the payment of funds from the approved accounts in violation of the agreement, as follows:

• Calculator for the month of October 2019 Y.A. Alon 30, 000 ILS,
• Calculator for the month of 11/2019 delayed ILS 50, 000
• Calculator for the month of December 2019 delayed ILS 55, 000,
• The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916From the account of the month of 01/2020 remains liable for ILS 170, 000,
• 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2( Account for the month of 02/2020 not paid at all.

15. M.Z. further claimed that these were repeated fundamental violations throughout the entire period of the engagement. For example, in December 2019, Y.A.  announced Alon to R.M.Z.  for stopping her work on the project without any justification, although she retracted her notice a few days later.
16. M.Z. added that despite the many opportunities she gave to Y.A. Alon, the latter continued its violations even after December 2019, and therefore had no choice but to announce on February 25, 2020 the cancellation of the agreement due to its fundamental breach and due to the announcement of Y.A.  Alon stated its intention not to pay the balance of the January 2020 account, and petitioned for payment of the sum of ILS 475, 000 according to the following details (the details of the heads of the damages are presented in their writing and in their own words as detailed in paragraph 27 of the statement of claim(:
17. Approved account balance for January 2020 - 170, 000 ₪
18. Chen Balance Transaction for February 2020 Works - 205, 000 ₪

III. Damages and losses of income and profits due to the cancellation of the agreement and the failure to-Completion of the project - 100, 000 ₪.

17. On the other hand, Y.A. Alon said that the agreement was signed on October 10, 2019, and the consideration will be paid "Pauchley Complete".  Despite this, R.M.Z.  is trying to change the terms of payment, despite the fact that S.A.  Alon paid R.M.Z.  Beitar therefore has an offset claim.  Y.A.  further argued.  Alon said that R.M.Z.  unilaterally abandoned the construction site, in an attempt to evade the completion of the work and the issuance of Form 4, only 15 days before the date that was intended for the completion of the works, which caused it damages.  Therefore, Y.A.  Alon Counterclaim.

The claim of Y.A.  Oak

18. The lawsuit claims that R.M.Z. And the abandonment of the site unilaterally and illegally, caused the work to be prolonged, and Y.A. was also forced to do so.  Alon to bear the expenses for the period of delay in handing over the apartments to the buyers.
19. According to her, as a result of the violation of R.M.Z. The agreement caused damage in the amount of ILS 2, 925, 305, as follows:

• A total of ILS 615, 000 the cost of completing the works. This is the amount of the difference between what she paid to the third parties, the sum of ILS 1, 165, 568, and the agreed consideration, less the payments already paid, to R.M.Z.  until the day of her departure;
• the sum of ILS 1, 382, 198 for repairs to defects in the apartments after inspection;
• the sum of ILS 414, 682, compensation to the tenants for the delay in delivering the apartments;
• a sum of ILS 200, 000, the salary of a safety certified foreman and a warehouseman, who, in accordance with the R.M.Z. agreement, was supposed to employ them at the construction site;
• The sum of ILS 313, 425 in respect of expenses and handling of the head office for the purpose of terminating the obligations of the R.M.Z., in accordance with clause 24(b( of the agreement.

20. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, Y.A. Alon based her claim on the sum of ILS 1, 200, 000 for the purposes of fees.
21. On the other hand, R.M.Z. Because the counterclaim is nothing more than a "futile attempt to place a 'counterweight' to its main claim." R.M.Z. did not violate the provisions of the agreement, and the person who violated those fundamental violations was Y.A.  Alon herself.  Therefore, if they were indeed caused by the Alon, any damages due to the cancellation of the agreement (which is denied by R.M.Z.), after all, these were caused by the conduct of Y.A.  Alon, and this does not obligate R.M.Z.  to pay any compensation.

Copied from Nevo